MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
April 29, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Tuesday, April 29, 2003. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Tom Grady
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Chad Christensen
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark Amodei,Capital Senatorial District
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County, Senatorial District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Recording Secretary
Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tammy Whatley, Police Officers Association, Clark County School District
Ken Hewlett, Capitol Police
David Schumann, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood
Dan Musgrove, Clark County
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Good evening. I’ll call the Committee to order. We’ll take the two resolutions very quickly and then we’ll go to bills. We will finish up with the other work session document (Exhibit C). Open up your document to Assembly Joint Resolution 5. This was Mr. Hettrick’s bill. We double-checked with him today and he has no suggested amendments. Unless the Committee had some that we did not catch, I would take a motion.
Assembly Joint Resolution 5: Urges Congress to appropriate just compensation to State of Nevada for losses of revenue for public education from impact of land in Nevada held by Federal Government. (BDR R-1070)
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 5.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
This is the bill that urges the compensation for the losses of revenue for public education.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote).
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.J.R. 6 and asked Michelle Van Geel to explain what Dr. Hardy asked the Committee to consider].
Assembly Joint Resolution 6: Urges Congress to increase payments in lieu of taxes and make certain other reparations for detrimental effects of federally held lands in Nevada. (BDR R-810)
Michelle Van Geel:
In Section 4(a) of the bill, line 6 through 8, Dr. Hardy suggested removing the language “including land under the railroads that will be used to transport high level radioactive waste to any repository for such waste located in Nevada.” I think the Committee did not want any reference to Yucca Mountain in that resolution.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Were there any other areas that anyone had any questions or concerns about? I think that was the one that I had made a notation about. I didn’t see anything in the original warehouses, but maybe double-check. If not, I would accept a motion to amend and do pass A.J.R. 6.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote).
We will take up Assembly Bill 542. I think for the Committee, rather than working off of the document in our work session guide, we’ll be working off the two-page document.
Assembly Bill 542: Makes various changes relating to operation of Legislature and Legislative Counsel Bureau. (BDR 17-1024)
Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
In front of you is a document (Exhibit D) proposing four amendments to Assembly Bill 542, all of which I believe were discussed at the hearing on the bill. The first is the proposal to change the method of enforcement of late filings of reports for non-paid lobbyists to allow us to, through the Legislative Commission, not impose fines on those lobbyists. If they continue to fail to file, or file late, [the Commission will] discipline them in other ways, such as revoking their registration. This is to avoid [imposing] financial hardship [on] someone who not only doesn’t get paid, but also generally appears here at their own expense.
I’ve summarized the four amendments and put the text of the numbered amendments, number 1, 2, 3, and 4. The second amendment is the provision concerning the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) authorizing credit for service. I mentioned that we had a concern that a person who worked for session and is deemed to have received a full year of retirement eligibility, who then worked the other half of the year, it could be construed that they earned a year and a half. To avoid any possibility, we thought we’d put right in the statute that you are not allowed to earn [more than] one year of credit for retirement eligibility in any year.
[Mr. Malkiewich, continued] The third amendment, you had some testimony concerning fiscal notes, requiring the Fiscal Analysis Division to do their preparation of fiscal notes on local government bills. Two concerns raised were that there was nothing in the bill that specifically required local governments to get copies of the bills. We’ve put that in and taken out the general requirement that a fiscal note be prepared if the only effect on a local government is the imposition of a misdemeanor or the increasing likelihood of misdemeanor punishment. We’ve put in an exception that would allow a fiscal note to be prepared if a local government notifies the Fiscal Analysis Division within eight days after the bill is introduced. This particular misdemeanor provision would have a fiscal impact. A fiscal note would be prepared under those circumstances.
Finally, the fourth proposal is the provision concerning staffing of the Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum. I’ve talked to the Chair. This also affects A.B. 349, which is now in the other house, allowing the Silver Haired Legislative Forum to have additional meetings. We proposed to address this budgetarily. I’ll talk to the money committees about it, and I hope those of you who sit on the money committees will be supportive of a slight bump for the Research Division staff to allow us to continue to provide the staffing for the Silver Haired Legislative Forum. That amendment would remove Section 22 from the bill. I’d be glad to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Relative to the provisions of recommendation number 2, if a person is retired, has already gone through PERS, will this give them an opportunity to pick up… This is not an essential position that they are uniquely qualified for, so it wouldn’t fit into one of those unique categories that we have. Will they get to pick up credit for their 34th or 35th year?
Lorne Malkiewich:
Only at the normal rate. If you work six months during session, you already have retirement eligibility. This would count as another six months of service credit. There’s a difference between eligibility for retirement and service credit. A person who has 30 years and worked six months for the Legislature would just have 30 years and six months. This is for someone to get to five years of credit for eligibility for retirement, to get to the vesting point. You could work five sessions and get to five years, deemed to have five years, although your benefit, your service credit would be based on the fact that you really only worked two and a half years. Your benefit would be quite small. This makes it reasonable to vest, but it would not have impact on the benefit.
Assemblyman Beers:
Was there a fiscal note attached with putting the Silver Haired Forum back in the resumption of Section 22?
Lorne Malkiewich:
We would like to propose to add staffing for one secretary. It is not so much taking this out as a combination of continuing to serve. It’s not a fiscal note in that it’s not adding anything. We currently provide those services by taking the bill out. We continue to provide the services. A.B. 349, which takes out the limits on the number of meetings they have, may mean that we provide more services. We’ve spent about a thousand hours of staff [time] on it in the last interim. What we will be proposing is enclosing the budget of the Legislative Counsel Bureau in addition to cutting about $600 or $700 thousand off of the budget and we increase it by $60,000 a year to pay for the salary, travel, and other costs of one secretarial position in the Research Division. Again, that will be up to the money committees. That’s just something we’ll be proposing to them.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We’re going to go to bills now and then we’ll come back and finish up this discussion. We have some questions that were raised at the last committee [meeting] about how many bills can be requested, so those are in your document for us to discuss. We will open up the hearing on Senate Bill 329.
Senate Bill 329 (1stReprint): Makes various changes relating to administrative regulations. (BDR 18-730)
Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District:
I’m speaking on behalf of Senate Bill 329, which is a measure that grew out of some experiences that I’ve had in the last couple of interims. The way regulations are set up now, in the year preceding a legislative year, when regulations are submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau for review by those of us who serve on the Legislative Commission, after August 1, there’s a cut‑off date for when those are reviewed by staff as a result for preparation for the upcoming legislative session the following winter.
There have been several instances where, and I’m speaking only for myself, I had the impression that perhaps the timing of that was being looked at fairly carefully to allow the submission of regulations to go automatically into temporary regulation status without having any review by the Legislative Commission or its subcommittee to review regulations, and thereby allow the operation, under temporary regulations, basic oversight for the period in question while they’re under temporary regulations.
[Senator Amodei, continued] I expressed concern to the Legislative Counsel and asked for assistance in drafting something that allowed, even in that time context, at the request of a legislator, if one of you gets a contact or a concern from somebody about a potential regulation to remove those out of the automatic temporary regulation status and have the Legislative Commission in fact performing its normal function to review those regulations.
If nobody brings this to the Floor and there are no concerns or complaints, then the regulation will go forward as usual. If somebody, in their legislative capacity, gets a question on a proposed regulation, this provides a tool by which you can ask the commission to review it, bring that regulation up before the Commission or its subcommittee to review regulations and review that in the normal course, as we do in non-legislative preparation context. So, the intent of the measure is to provide legislators the ability to question regulations, even when we are approaching a legislative session, for terms of preparation for staff and be responsive to your constituents if that’s indeed the will of the Commission and your colleagues.
Assemblyman Anderson:
As you are well aware, Senator Amodei, the Legislative Commission often gets inquiries about regulations that go before the committee and usually by the time they come to us in the Commission, that has already been worked out and we never hear from those concerned individuals. If I’m to understand what you’re looking for, it is that during the session, every question that is raised will come before the Legislative Commission, or there will be no regulation. Is that a fair statement?
Senator Amodei:
The intent of the regulation is to allow the Commission to perform the same function after the cut-off date in years preceding a legislative session, as it does not. It doesn’t mean that the Commission will automatically get all regulations. It will only get to review those regulations. If, for example, Assemblyman Grady is contacted by someone who has a concern over proposed regulation of the Optometrist Board, he can, if this is put into law, then ask that this regulation be taken from the normal queue and go before the Legislative Commission to be reviewed. That’s the only authority it would give an individual legislator. Then, the regulation would be at the pleasure of the Commission. As it stands right now, if you are contacted by a constituent in September of an even-numbered year about concern with the proposed regulation of the Optometry Board and you check with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the answer you will get will be that automatically goes into effect as a temporary regulation by virtue of the operation of existing statutes under Chapter 232B of the Nevada Revised Statutes, and we can’t review that until we get out of the session in terms of in a permanent regulation context. As I found out in several instances, serving on the Commission can be the better part of a year or more.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Senator, on page 2, subsection 3, is there now a different committee? Because you’re right, there is a current committee that reviews regulations that’s appointed by the Legislative Commission. Would this then create a second committee to review temporary, or am I just reading that wrongly?
Senator Amodei:
It is not our intent to create any new infrastructures to use the existing committee infrastructures to deal with any inquiries brought up by legislators.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So, it says, “The Legislative Commission may appoint a committee composed of three or more members of the Commission to examine temporary regs…” So, we should just clarify if that’s adding a committee or using the current one? [Senator Amodei indicated that was correct]. We’ll get a confirmation on that and we’ll let you know what they say. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on S.B. 329? If not, we will close the hearing on S.B. 329 and open the hearing on Assembly Bill 158.
Assembly Bill 158 (1st Reprint): Directs the Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning classification of peace officers. (BDR S-2)
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Mr. Arberry will not be here, but we put this in from Ways and Means, so I’ll just do the testimony from here. It’s another one of the interim committees that we were suggesting.
Tammy, what was the bill number of the other bill we were looking at on the peace officers? There had been a bill to look at salary and reclassification. They had talked about that in the Committee. Then we had another group that came in and another group that wanted to add someone else to officer status. Speaker Perkins said, “You know what, it’s probably time not to take action now, but to maybe look at reviewing the whole issue of who currently is even under that.” We’ve negatively impacted, in some cases the heart and lung issue, not covered some that should be, et cetera.
Hence this recommended study committee for us to take into consideration. We usually only select three. At this point we have probably about eight, so I don’t know what the status is, but at some point we’ll get back together. If the Senate doesn’t have a lot, sometimes we can give them one of ours and negotiate on that part of it. So, when I inform you today that it’s probably not going, it’s because there’s so many out there. We will have to do it based on priorities, but it’s a worthwhile piece of legislation in my opinion because it does need to be looked at as to how many people do we keep adding to peace officer status? How do we categorize? How do we pay them? Who qualifies for heart and lung, and what that balance should be. We’ll open up for testimony.
Tammy Whatley, Police Officers Association, Clark County School District:
We currently have 140 commissioned officers. We service 277 schools, not including the ones under construction at this time. We have a student body in excess of 255,000 students. We have a staff in excess of 30,000. I respectfully ask that this interim study be conducted to consider the reclassification of Clark County School District Police Officers from Category II to Category I.
I’ve listed in the prepared comments (Exhibit E) in the Nevada Administrative Code, there are eleven points of training from Category I to Category II. Those are each listed there. Clark County School District Police Department conducts all of these. We are fully trained Category I, so there’s no fiscal impact to the school district at this time. We perform the job of a Category I. We drive marked emergency vehicles. We conduct traffic accident investigations on district property. We do have to complete a Form 5 and submit that to the state of Nevada. We investigate drivers who are under the influence of alcohol or substance abuse. We are trained in weapons of mass destruction. We perform building searches upon receiving a burglary alarm activation. We simply could not effectively perform the function bestowed upon us as Clark County police officers if we were not trained in the above areas.
Now, with the current budget cuts, it is a concern that the Clark County School District Police Department may be forced to reduce our training to the Category II training. If the training of police officers diminishes, it will greatly impact the safety of our students and our staff. If they’re forced to do this, the local law enforcement agencies would have to respond on a more frequent basis, thus causing a delay in response time. We currently have a police department that is fully capable of handling the situations that arise on the campuses, and in this day and age when we must be vigilant about homeland security and school violence, I ask that you not step backwards, but continue to move forward and support the Clark County School District Police Department. With this, I respectfully request this interim study be performed. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Anderson:
In 1991, when I was a freshman, I served on the subcommittee that reviewed the interim committee report that came back relative to who was a police officer and who was not, along with, then-Assemblyman Gene Porter, who is currently a judge in Clark County, who is the chair of the subcommittee. In one of my other committees, we’ve heard, over time, some problems, particularly located in Clark County, relative to the question of jurisdiction, particularly where the school district reached outside its jurisdictional level to conflict with Clark County Metro in terms of guarding the crime scene in such a fashion that the evidence was lost. In fact, there was a relatively large event that took place approximately three years ago in Clark County, a rape, and I’ve seen at one of the high schools where evidence was lost. Does Clark County have the capacity to do crime scene investigation with that kind of backup?
Tammy Whatley:
We are trained in investigations. We perform just as any other police agency. We now turn our category A felonies over to Metro.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I know and I know why, so that’s the problem. Maybe this section of the law should have been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, where it was police officer dealt with rather than a governmental function of the code of responsibilities that are there. I know that’s become a big issue over time and I think it’s part of the reason why it continues to grow as to who is not a police officer, who is, and who should be. It’s not just a Clark County issue, it’s a statewide issue, and while Metro in Las Vegas has, the Clark County School District has, it has a different than the smaller counties in the state are not, they need the state to carry on its training exercise for its regular sheriff officers and their school district officers or even, it does produce a huge impact on them. Have you contemplated beyond Clark County in terms of looking at this issue? Or is it only a Clark County issue?
Tammy Whatley:
I am concerned about the Clark County School District Police Department. The incident that you referred to about a botched investigative crime scene, I am not aware of that particular situation. It’s unfortunate if that did in fact occur. I’ve been with the department just under three years and I can tell you that we are fully trained just as any other police agency and we have now, since that time, started sending our officers to crime scene school. That, if I’m not mistaken, is conducted by Metro. As far as asking for this, my concern, I truly represent Clark County School District Police Department. I cannot answer on behalf of any other agency or district.
Ken Hewlett, Capitol Police:
I originated this bill, A.B. 158, through Mr. Arberry. I feel Capitol Police needs it because our primary duties are the protection of state-owned and -leased properties. We do have a full-time patrol unit that functions 24 hours a day. We’re in a marked police unit: lights, sirens, everything else. Up until this time, we have trained as Category I and the Director of Public Safety has decided to train as Category II as we’re listed. Being that we are all listed and trained as Category I, if we get new officers coming on board that are listed as Category II, we have to pick up the cost further down the road [for] the training that they do not get in the Academy. [Those include] traffic laws, operations of emergency vehicles, procedures of patrol, basic patrol, stopping and citing drivers, non-lethal weapons, operation of emergency vehicles, investigation of drivers who are under the influence or controlled substance, and investigation of accidents. We fall under this all the time on our routine patrols. For the Capitol Police, this is just a training issue. It’s not a monetary issue for raises or anything else. It’s just a training issue to keep us up to where we should be to do our job effectively.
David Schumann, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood:
I’m here in support of this bill, but I’d like to draw your attention to Section 1(2). “This study must include without limitation an investigation of the distinctions made in classifying peace officers on the basis of criteria, such as jurisdiction, powers, duties, and training.” There’s a group of people operating in the state that have not gotten any kind of Nevada training and not been declared “Nevada” peace officers, yet they carry guns and badges, seize property, and point their guns at people. I’m speaking of the employees of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fire Service. I think this study should definitely look into that because the law of the land, the U.S. Code, Title 43, Section 1701, specifically passed by Congress, calls on the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to employ local police authorities when they go to seize cattle or do any other police functions. Yet, under the Code of Federal Regulations drawn up by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, Title 43, Section 4150, these are drawn not by the Legislature, but by the Executive Branch to administer FLPMA [Federal Land Practices and Management Act]. That’s Title 43, Section 1701. They have their own Title 43 and it’s Section 4150. It’s not the law of the land. It’s called CFR’s [Code of Federal Regulations] Code of Federation. They have people running around with guns and taking property without due process. Police officers are bound by the rules of due process, so when they do some of these things they have to go in front of a judge and say, “Judge, I’d like to take these cattle,” and the judge says, “Okay, you’ve got a case, do it, or no you don’t, don’t do it.” Due process, under the CFRs, not what Congress wrote, but under the CFRs, is, “we notify you, you may call us and query us on it,” but that notice is due process. So, you’ve got a group of people who operate as peace officers and yet they’re not. I think this Section 1(2) ought to be used to investigate that group of people. With that, I want to thank you for your time.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I’m a little, and I recognize the group that you’re talking about, perplexed whether we, as a state, would not then be in violation of the U.S. Constitution relative to the separation of national government and state government. Generally speaking, we, within our state powers, under the Bill of Rights, have the right to determine who gets to carry a gun and who doesn’t get to carry a gun within state borders. But we don’t supervise any of the federal government employees within our rules; the management of federal government employees is a federal government prerogative, not a state prerogative. Their behavior has to conform to state law, I recognize, but, if we say, “You don’t get to carry,” there are still going to be BLM [Bureau of Land Management] employees, and they have the right to protect themselves.
David Schumann:
No. This has been spoken to directly in the case of Pollard v. Hagan, which I will supply the Committee with a copy tomorrow (Exhibit F). Within the boundaries in the state of Nevada, or any other state, the whole federal government has no municipal authority. The Supreme Court says this numerous times in this one case. You won’t find in the U.S. Constitution a grant of municipal authority that means police powers to the federal government, within the boundaries of the state. Now, some people get confused and say, “But this is federal land. It is still within the boundaries of the state.” This Title 43, Section 1701, says that within the boundaries of the state, if there ever is a need to do any policing, that the Secretary of Agriculture “shall contact local law enforcement officials to carry it out.” That’s what the U.S. Code, passed by Congress says. Now, that is not what the CFRs, which were written by the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, say. The CFRs say “We can do this on our own.” So, there’s a contradiction there. I think you’re very safe in sticking with, or going via what the U.S. Code says, because that’s the law of the land.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Schumann, we’re going to have research take a look at this issue. If you have something to provide the Committee, will you do so?
David Schumann:
I will tomorrow. We didn’t know about this, so I’m late. I didn’t bring you anything.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
That’s fine. Mr. Anderson, do you have any follow-up? Any other questions from the Committee for Mr. Schumann? We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 158 and we’ll open the hearing on Senate Bill 37.
Senate Bill 37: Requires development of recommendations for elimination of obsolete or antiquated statutes. (BDR 17-115)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County, Senatorial District No. 3:
I use at least one bill draft each session to get rid of an antiquated or an obsolete statute to show people of Nevada we don’t need everything we’ve got. Sometimes it’s a little tougher task than others. I did bring one as an antiquated statute this time. This was something that we decided that the time had come. S.B. 37 would require the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Research Director to work collaboratively to determine which provisions of NRS are obsolete or antiquated.
Each even-numbered year, they would make recommendations about which provisions should be eliminated. That recommendation would be made to the Legislative Commission and they could draft or request bill drafts to facilitate those recommendations. Currently, under our law, the Legislative Counsel, “from time to time is required to make these recommendations to the Legislature.” S.B. 37 would require regular biennial reviews and subsequent recommendations to the Legislative Commission.
This is a simple bill. This is a bill that would certainly address needs for accountability and provide us with a regular review and opportunities for cleanup in our statutes. It’s for these reasons and in effort to ensure efficiency in our statutory regulation that I urge your support for S.B. 37. I brought Mr. Erickson to respond to anything technical that might arise from the Committee because he would be one of the people participating in the review.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I served on an interim study this time that looked at misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. We got rid of goats eating in graveyards and the cutting and shearing of sheep at the edge of cities, and who was a barber and who wasn’t a barber. It seems to me there aren’t that many.
Senator Wiener:
I thought about that too because that came to our Committee in Judiciary for careful scrutiny. What we need to remember is that this would be henceforth. There may be things we’re drafting today that in 2, 3, or 5 sessions would need that kind of review. This would require that regular second, third, and fourth look at things that may become antiquated sooner rather than later that we don’t even know about right now. It certainly would have it in statute that they would have to perform this task.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
We’ll bring this bill back to Committee. I’ll close the hearing on S.B. 37 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 148.
Senate Bill 148: Provides for joint requesters on list of requests for preparation of legislative measures. (BDR 17-286)
Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
This bill, as the summary and title indicates, just allows you to indicate joint requesters on the list of requests for legislative measure. The substance of the bill is on the second page starting with line 14. If you request a bill and want to show joint requesters on the list of BDRs that we start publishing July 1 preceding session, then you could show the names of other legislators from either house as joint requesters. Those names wouldn’t be added without your approval and the approval of the person whose name is added. It could be removed upon request of either, and the Legislative Counsel would act only upon the request of the primary sponsor, the person who submitted the bill draft request, for the purposes of limitations on numbers, which you may be discussing more later. It would, again, being a joint requester, would not in any way impact that. It would just be the person who initially submitted the bill. But when you put a bill in, you would be able to indicate that these other members of the Assembly are joint sponsors, or these members of the Senate are joint sponsors. It would show on the list of BDRs each week starting July 1 preceding session. With that, Mr. Vice Chair, I’d be glad to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Can you voluntarily add yourself to it?
Lorne Malkiewich:
The primary sponsor is going to be in control and you would need the consent of both parties, the primary sponsor and the person whose name is to be added. To delete your name, you could do that on your own. If you are shown as a joint sponsor and wish to remove your name, that could be done at the request of either the primary sponsor or the secondary joint sponsor.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Is there a limit to the number of joint sponsors?
Lorne Malkiewich:
Not in this bill, I don’t believe. I think, theoretically, you could have 62 joint sponsors to a measure on the list of BDRs.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Would that be somewhat cumbersome? I understood you to say that all of them become sort of… Is there still a primary sponsor? The first name is still the primary sponsor and has total control, or do all of these people… Do we take a vote to be able to…
Lorne Malkiewich:
The primary sponsor is totally in control of the bill. Assume again it is your bill. You could list the other 62 legislators with their consent as joint sponsors, but you would be in control of what is drafted, the bill would be charged to you, and no one else on the list could propose any changes to the BDR. They’re just signed on as joint sponsors.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
I have in my packet some information regarding the number of measures allocated to different bodies. Did you provide that to us, Michelle?
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst:
The additional information on the work session was mostly for A.B. 542. I provided the list titled “Number of Legislative Measures Requested and Introduced by Non-Legislative Entities” (Exhibit G). The list my office prepared (Exhibit H) was titled “Number of Legislative Measures That May Be Requested For Drafting, By Entity.” The other information on statutory committees, Mr. Malkiewich had provided. This was all in relation to A.B. 542.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
So that’s not pertaining to this particular measure, is that correct? [Ms. Van Geel indicated it was]. If there are no other questions from the Committee, then we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 148. Is there a motion from the Committee?
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 148.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote).
********
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 37.
CHAIRWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote).
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Lorne, we won’t do Assembly Bill 542 today so they can have time to look at the joint sponsorships. If you would take that with you. A couple of points to be considered: Do we want to continue changing how many bill drafts can be requested or not, by various groups, legislators, and so on? Do we want to look at possible eliminations of some standing committees? They were semi‑promised to me last time and they didn’t quite do that, but I think it’s time we take a look that committees should not go on ad infinitum, or maybe if we add one on, one always comes off the list. We could do something along those lines. Just take that along with you so we can look at those items.
Assemblyman Anderson:
It would be helpful if we could see what those committees have done prior to the 120-day session, so that we can see a couple of years, see what the load was over time. I believe I’ve seen that some place in the past, where we’ve seen what it had done in 1995 and 1997. I don’t believe that there’s been a dramatic drop in the number of bill draft requests merely because we moved to the 120-day session.
Lorne Malkiewich:
You mentioned the fact that we took a look at these over the past interim last session. During the interim, the Legislative Commission reviewed a number of these committees for potential sunset and recommended one, and that bill died. However, it’s not quite dead. S.B. 216 is still alive and you may see a proposal to eliminate the Marlette Lake Advisory Committee in a bill that creates a larger committee. In the course of that sunset review, we did a number of things. First, we have reports that were presented to the Legislative Commission concerning all of those committees. Again, it wasn’t every one on this list. It was a good number of them. Some of these were excluded for various reasons, but most of them were reviewed. That information is available.
[Mr. Malkiewich, continued] What I believe Mr. Anderson is referring to is the work session of the Legislative Commission. We prepared a very detailed report on the recommendations of these committees over the years. Some, such as the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, a brand new committee, is not going to have any kind of history in it. It is scheduled to sunset already, as is the Committee for Local Government Taxes and Finance. Both have July 1 sunsets in them. I believe the Public Lands Committee in a bill passed by the Assembly, earlier, had a sunset put onto it. Again, when you do discuss that, I’d like to come back and talk about different committees and their rules.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
If you could maybe get that information that Mr. Anderson asked for? And, statutory committees, we also have other committees that we’ve created. Do we have that laundry list someplace?
Lorne Malkiewich:
There are two other major categories of committees. One is interim study. As you mentioned earlier, we generally do about three per house each session. Those truly are just interim. They work for one interim, they make a report to the Commission, and then they’re gone, so those are not included on this list. The other committees are non-legislative committees. You’ll have a Commission on Aging to which a legislator is appointed, a Commission on Substance Abuse, Prevention, Treatment, et cetera, to which a legislator or two are appointed. Those are committees primarily composed of Executive Branch appointees or people who are not legislators that happen to have a legislator on them. I did not include those on there.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I notice a couple that are missing because I had my original A.B. 179. Mr. McCleary and I tried to move out, regarding not only the Legislative Committee on Education, but also we had the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation Committee, the Commission on Educational Technology Committee, and the Academic Standards Committee. Where are those?
Lorne Malkiewich:
Again, those are ones that are primarily Executive Branch committees on which a legislator serves.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay, could we get list of those as well?
Assemblyman Anderson:
The city of Sparks, for example, is entitled to receive one, as all cities, under 100,000 [people] are entitled to receive. However, that City Charter Committee, there is a legislative body created by the Legislature, to make legislative recommendations. That prevents, if the Charter Committee is going to make a recommendation, then the city cannot make a recommendation.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
In this outline, that’s absolutely correct. I think when we pared down the numbers, it’s because we had also talked about all bills having to go through a legislator rather than through these specialized areas here. It was felt that the compromise was to give the local governments each something. If there were additional bills, they had to go through a legislator.
Assemblyman Anderson:
The point is that it restricts a charter city as compared to a general law city, which has that opportunity. So, if we’re going to be talking about that, I think that, not that there’s going to be a charter change in it. Although, my city seems to come up with that every time. There’s not a guarantee that there’s going to be a change in the charter in each instance. Put those kind of restrictions on Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas because they have a larger number to deal with. But, they also probably run into that kind of a problem if their charters give them the option. I haven’t reviewed each city charter to determine whether the charter stands away from the city council, but in the city of Sparks it does, so it’s possible for them to make a recommendation without the blessings of the city. If we didn’t give them a bill draft, they wouldn’t have one.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Currently, they would have to go through a legislator.
Assemblyman Anderson:
If the Legislature says the charter has the right to make the recommendation, charter changes, and then they have to go out and search for a legislator, then they really don’t have a right that exists.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
If what you’re saying, though, that the charter is what allows them that authority, so…
Assemblyman Anderson:
Which the Legislature created.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We set the city charters, but cities can amend their charters without legislative approval.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Not the city of Sparks.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
You never changed that? I thought four or six years ago they had something.
Assemblyman Anderson:
The charter cities can change their charters without coming through the legislative body, through the charter committees.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Well, then, maybe we don’t give the city a bill and we give it to the charter if that’s who is empowered to do the legislative recommendations.
Assemblyman Anderson:
The change is only to the charter but not to other needs of the city. The city may have other kinds of needs. I just bring it before us as a sticking point. This happens in my Committee. Maybe it doesn’t happen anywhere else in the state.
Assemblyman Grady:
A few years back, there was considerable discussion to do away with the local governments having any chance to put a bill in. The compromise that was made then was the larger cities and counties would have so many bills. The smaller would have one that they increased, NACO, and the League of Cities from 10 bills to 20, encouraging the cities to go through the League of Cities, the counties to go through NACO, and so they would have the bills so everyone would agree. The reason for doing that is normally what would affect one city, or county. So, instead of having numerous bills come through to change the same statute, we could do it through the League or through NACO and accomplish this, trying to eliminate some of the bill draft requests from local government.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
You’re right. It looks like the League of Cities could have had other charter cities. They had ten bills that they didn’t even request, so they could have gone through them. Quite a few cities just didn’t ask for any; we had two on the list. What would be helpful is, since we made that change, Lorne, in the 1999 Session, maybe to see how many bills have been requested from each of the groups, not just this year’s.
Dan Musgrove, Clark County:
I would caution you. We wanted to be very conservative in what we brought up this session knowing that it was going to be dealing with taxes and issues that were of great importance, and we did not want to bring issues that we felt maybe were… We have our own internal process where we screen things and there were some issues that folks were unhappy that we, as an internal body, chose not to bring forth, but we thought that it wasn’t something that we wanted to bring forth this session, with all of the matters that you were dealing with.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It looks like everybody was pretty frugal if you really go down the list.
Dan Musgrove:
Absolutely, and I think that was, because I was with the city of Las Vegas prior to coming over, and that was one of the things that they working on too, was to try to be very conservative this session. So, I hope that you wouldn’t pare us down unnecessarily just because we didn’t bring forth a lot this session, because obviously there are issues that we need to bring forth. Again, Mr. Grady is absolutely correct; your intent was to force us to use our League so that we would bring more broad-based issue bills.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Right, and then you could still deal with cleanup stuff for your own.
Dan Musgrove:
Absolutely, and the other thing is, the City of Las Vegas, those charter changes, they don’t have a charter committee. That is done by the city council. I think Sparks is unique in that way. I think maybe Carson City is unique in that they have a charter committee, but when the City of Las Vegas intends to make a charter change, they have to use one of their own bill drafts.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Further discussion on this? Okay, if you can get us that information, we’ll take it up. [Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 4:59 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Corey Fox
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: